The American Masculinity Podcast is hosted by Timothy Wienecke — licensed psychotherapist, Air Force veteran, and award-winning men's advocate. Real conversations about masculinity, mental health, trauma, fatherhood, leadership, and growth. Each episode offers expert insight and practical tools to help men show up differently — as partners, fathers, friends, and leaders. No yelling. No clichés. Just grounded, thoughtful masculinity for a changing world.

Being a man today often means carrying responsibility without a clear map for meaning. Work used to define everything. Service, provision, and endurance were enough. Now, many men are left asking who they are when the old scripts no longer hold. They often wonder what strength is supposed to look like in a world that’s changed.

In this episode, host Timothy sits down with military veteran and entrepreneur Scott DeLuzio. They have a grounded, wide-ranging conversation about masculinity, service, leadership, and identity after uniform. Drawing from military culture, entrepreneurship, fatherhood, and generational change, they explore how men are shaped by systems that prize competence and toughness and what happens when those systems fall away.

You’ll hear us break down:

• The military’s masculine culture: Why structure, hierarchy, and shared mission accelerate growth and how that culture can both build and limit men.
• Combat vs. support roles: The unspoken hierarchy inside the military, why most service members are enablers rather than fighters, and how that reframes masculine worth.
• Teamwork and leadership after service: Why veterans often succeed in entrepreneurship by rejecting the “do it all yourself” myth.
• Scarcity vs. abundance thinking: How competition for attention and status undermines men, and why collaboration creates more room for everyone.
• The provider identity collapse: How our grandfathers’ work-based purpose shaped masculinity and why that model no longer sustains modern men.
• Fatherhood and overprotection: How today’s parents have created safer childhoods, and the unintended cost of limiting failure, risk, and resilience.
• Letting boys struggle well: Why strength is built through responsibility, exposure, and earned competence, not constant rescue.

We highlight the tension men feel between duty and meaning, protection and growth, independence and belonging. This conversation doesn’t offer easy answers or nostalgia. It provides something more durable: a clearer understanding of how men are formed, what they’ve lost, and how they can rebuild purpose without abandoning strength.

Guest Information

• Military veteran and former U.S. Army officer with firsthand experience in leadership, teamwork, and institutional culture under pressure.
• Founder and host of the Drive On Podcast, focused on helping veterans and high-performing men navigate life, leadership, and purpose after service.
• Entrepreneur and advocate for veteran transition, known for translating military leadership principles into practical tools for business, fatherhood, and personal growth.
• Speaks openly about masculinity, identity beyond the uniform, scarcity vs. abundance thinking, and the challenges men face when old purpose structures fall away.
• Focus areas include veteran entrepreneurship, masculine identity, leadership development, fatherhood, teamwork, and post-service transition.

Note: Scott DeLuzio appears in this interview in a personal and professional capacity. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or any affiliated institution.

We fact-checked this conversation against established research in psychology, behavioural economics, and organizational studies. Below are the most important confirmations and clarifications for accuracy and nuance.

1. Scarcity mindset vs. abundance mindset in creative and audience-based work.

What was said: “If everybody’s making good things and it’s helping people, then we’re all doing fine… versus the scarcity of ‘there’s only so many people listening, I need to get them all,’ which doesn’t really work out.” (Tim)

Status: Largely true, with clarification needed.

Detail: Although the names themselves are popularized rather than coming from a single traditional work, the distinction between a scarcity mindset and an abundance mindset is well-supported in psychological and economic studies. The term "scarcity mindset" describes the cognitive strain and competitive tunnel vision that develop when people believe that opportunities, money, or attention are scarce. Perceived scarcity narrows focus, raises stress levels, and frequently results in short-term, zero-sum thinking that compromises long-term goals, according to research by Mullainathan and Shafir.

Abundance-oriented thinking, on the other hand, is consistent with prosocial and cooperative models, where value creation broadens rather than narrows a set "market." Numerous studies on network effects and the attention economy in media and content ecosystems demonstrate that diverse, high-quality material can increase overall audience engagement rather than cannibalize it, particularly when creators cater to different niches or complementary requirements.

The clarification is that human attention is limited, hence abundance does not equate to limitless attention. The crucial realization is that cooperative or non-zero-sum framing typically results in better individual and group outcomes than competition motivated by fear.

Source: Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2014.1003732

Why it matters for men: This encourages a more positive masculine perspective on contribution and purpose that is based on competence, confidence, and service rather than comparison-driven fear. Stronger leadership, teamwork, and psychological resilience are associated with an abundance frame, which promotes males to prioritize mastery and usefulness over territorial defensiveness.

2. Combat arms hierarchy and proportion of service members.

What was said: “There is a hierarchy between combat arms guys and the rest of us. And only one in 10 of people who served are combat arms guys. And the rest of us are just there to make sure you all can do the job.” (Tim)

Status: True.

Detail: In many military organizations, especially the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, combat arms roles (such as infantry, armour, artillery, and special operations) are frequently given higher informal status than combat support and combat service support roles. This is a well-documented cultural hierarchy. Formally, all Military Occupational Specialities (MOS) are institutionally required and appreciated; this hierarchy is cultural rather than official. Combat arms troops are a minority of the entire force structure, according to several Department of Defense manpower analyses. Depending on the branch and year, between 10% and 15% of active-duty troops in the U.S. military are usually assigned to combat arms; the remainder serve in support, logistics, intelligence, medical, administrative, and technological jobs that facilitate combat operations. Therefore, even though it is an estimate rather than a precise ratio, the "one in ten" figure is a reasonable shorthand. In terms of military systems theory, the assertion that "the rest of us are just there to make sure you all can do the job" is directionally accurate: combat efficiency depends on substantial institutional support, and modern warfare is logistically demanding.

Source: Department of Defense. (2022). 2021 Demographics: Profile of the military community. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy. https://share.google/MzGwZu38S5HUZuGIl

King, A. (2013). The combat soldier: Infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. OUP Oxford. https://academic.oup.com/book/7431

Why it matters for men: This reinterprets masculinity as a functional skill and group duty rather than a limited battle identity. It contextualizes why combat duties hold symbolic weight but are not the only indicator of worth. And it affirms military members whose masculinity and value are demonstrated via dependability, technical proficiency, and teamwork rather than just direct aggression.

3. The military as a masculine-coded environment focused on masculine growth.

What was said: “What the military really does well is that it’s a masculine environment, which doesn’t mean women can’t serve and doesn’t mean that women aren’t powerful in their service, but it is a culture that’s kind of based around masculine growth.” (Tim)

Status: True.

Detail: The majority of military sociologists and historians agree that contemporary Western militaries, especially those of the United States and its allies, evolved as institutions with a male code. Hegemonic masculine attributes have historically been associated with core military ideals, including physical toughness, emotional restraint under duress, hierarchy, discipline, rule-controlled aggression, risk tolerance, and sacrifice for the collective. This does not imply that women cannot possess or excel in these qualities, nor that they are naturally specific to men. Instead, the institution's leadership models, rites of passage, and training programs were initially created with male socialization and developmental routes in mind. The argument that the environment is masculine in structure rather than male-exclusive in participation is supported by research showing that women have successfully satisfied these standards as they have integrated into leadership and combat roles without significantly altering the underlying culture. To be clear, "masculine growth" in this context refers to characteristics that are culturally associated with men (discipline, competence, mastery, controlled violence), not to sexism, dominance, or exclusion.

Source: King, A. (2013). The combat soldier: Infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. OUP Oxford. https://academic.oup.com/book/7431

Why it matters for men: This aids in separating misogyny from masculinity. It emphasizes that cultures that focus on structure, accountability, and earned competence frequently enhance men's development, while simultaneously acknowledging that women are capable of exhibiting and possessing these same qualities. According to this interpretation, masculinity is not about gender superiority but rather about disciplined ability and responsibility.

4. Military team experience and entrepreneurial success.

What was said: “For those who dip their toes into the entrepreneurial world, those who have been in the military, who have experience working on a team and not doing everything on their own, I’ve found have been more successful.” (Scott)

Status: True.

Detail: The assumption that veterans are disproportionately successful in entrepreneurship is supported by empirical data; nevertheless, this advantage is not guaranteed and depends on how military expertise is applied in civilian commercial settings. Veterans are more likely than non-veterans to launch firms, and their initiatives frequently show greater early survival rates, according to studies from the U.S. Small Business Administration and university entrepreneurship research. Team-based competence is a major contributing factor. Military service places a great emphasis on delegation, role clarity, trust, leadership under pressure, and coordination within complex systems. These are the skills that are closely linked to successful entrepreneurial leadership. In contrast to the "solo hero" paradigm that frequently destroys early-stage companies, veterans are also more likely to realize the limitations of individual capacity and to rely on complementary experience (e.g., recruiting for marketing, finance, or operations). Nonetheless, military service by itself does not ensure success if leadership style is not actively modified. Strict hierarchy, risk calibration mismatches, or difficulty adapting can impede results. The benefit is not just in service status but also in team-oriented leadership and systems thinking.

Source: Sobota, J. (2017). Veteran-owned businesses and their owners. Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration.

https://www. sba. gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/435-veteran-owned-businesses-report. Pdf.

Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2010). A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of business venturing, 25(2), 217-229. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883902608001031

Why it matters for men: This dispels the misconception that complete independence is necessary for male entrepreneurs to succeed. It reframes competence as understanding when to lead and when to lean on others, supporting a healthier male identity founded in collaboration, strategic humility, and shared purpose rather than burnout-driven solitude.

5. The provider role as the primary source of male purpose across generations.

What was said: “Our grandfathers, their whole purpose was their job. The provider role was quintessential and all that you had. And now that’s much less.” (Tim)

Status: True.

Detail: The idea that the breadwinner/provider position was the primary source of masculine identity, social prestige, and personal purpose for men in the early to mid-20th century, especially in industrialized Western societies, is firmly supported by historical and sociological studies. After the Industrial Revolution and particularly after World War II, solid wage work, long-term employment with a single employer, and the moral need to provide for a family became firmly associated with masculinity. According to academics, this is known as the "male breadwinner model," in which men's value was primarily determined by their ability to succeed in their careers and provide for their families, with emotional fulfilment and caring for others being viewed as secondary or discouraged. On the other hand, this unique identity anchor has been undermined by changes in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, including deindustrialization, dual-income homes, women's engagement in the workforce, and shifting family customs.

The idea is that while provider identity has not vanished, it is no longer enough for many men to give psychological stability, meaning, or prestige. According to recent research, males today find meaning in a wider range of activities, such as parenting, relationships, community service, and personal growth, even if many do not have clear cultural guidelines for incorporating these tasks.

Source: Kimmel, M. (2017). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Hachette UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285435152_Angry_White_Men_American_Masculinity_at_the_End_of_an_Era_by_Michael_Kimmel

Why it matters for men: This explains why a lot of men suffer from identity uncertainty or bereavement when their profession is no longer fulfilling. It reframes the challenge as a cultural shift that necessitates extending masculinity beyond provision toward presence, contribution, and relational depth rather than as a personal failure.

6. Millennials as parents are creating the safest but overprotected generation of children.

What was said: “I think millennials have been on the plus side as parents. We have made the safest generation of children in human history. On the negative side of that, a lot of those children never had opportunities to fail.” (Tim)

Status: Mostly true, with important clarification.

Detail: Long-term data on public health and child welfare provide strong evidence that children today are the safest in history. Over the past century, medical advancements, safety legislation (car seats, helmets, childproofing), and increased parental supervision have significantly reduced child mortality, major injury, workplace child labour, and exposure to violence across industrialized nations. As a generation of parents, millennials have contributed to this trend by using intensive parenting techniques that are sometimes referred to as "concerted cultivation" or "helicopter parenting." The second element of the thesis is likewise supported by research, which shows that fewer unstructured possibilities for risk-taking, independent problem-solving, and failure have coincided with enhanced safety and supervision. Reduced free play, risk aversion, and adult-managed childhoods might hinder the development of resilience, autonomy, and frustration tolerance, according to developmental psychologists and sociologists. The explanation is that this is a logical reaction to cultural incentives, legal culpability, competitive educational systems, and increased fear of harm, rather than a special moral shortcoming of millennials. Resilience and safety have a systemic, not just personal, trade-off.

Source: Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American journal of play, 3(4), 443-463. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ985541.pdf

Why it matters for men: This portrays modern parenthood as facing a genuine developmental conundrum: how to strike a balance between protection and the deliberate admission of difficulty, rather than as being "too soft." It promotes a style of masculinity that includes the bravery to let kids fail safely, teaching strength by exposing them to challenges rather than merely protecting them from damage.

Full Citations / Further Reading

Department of Defense. (2022). 2021 Demographics: Profile of the military community. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy.

Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American journal of play, 3(4), 443-463. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ985541.pdf

Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2010). A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of business venturing, 25(2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001

Hockey, J. (2017). No more heroes: Masculinity in the infantry. In The criminology of war (pp. 401-411). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086859-20

Kimmel, M. (2017). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. Hachette https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0060

King, A. (2013). The combat soldier: Infantry tactics and cohesion in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. OUP Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199658848.001.0001

Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.1003732

Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin books. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.650510

Sobota, J. (2017). Veteran-owned businesses and their owners. Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration. https://www.Sba. gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/435-veteran-owned-businesses-report. Pdf

Townsend, N. (2010). Package deal: Marriage, work and fatherhood in men's lives. Temple University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556469